 Name : Samia Ahmed khan

 CMS ID: 6195009

 Department: BS IR.
 3r Semester , Section B.
 Submitted tto : Sir Ayub.
 Subject : I Diplomatic history of IR 1648-1945.
 Date : 17/09/2023
 THOMAS HOBBES
Thomas Hobbes, (born April 5, 1588, Westport, Wiltshire, England—died December 4, 1679,
Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire), English philosopher, scientist, and historian, best known for his
political philosophy, especially as articulated in his masterpiece Leviathan (1651). Hobbes
viewed government primarily as a device for ensuring collective security. Political authority is
justified by a hypothetical social contract among the many that vests in a sovereign person or
entity the responsibility for the safety and well-being of all. In metaphysics, Hobbes defended
materialism, the view that only material things are real. His scientific writings present all
observed phenomena as the effects of matter in motion. Hobbes was not only a scientist in his
own right but a great systematize of the scientific findings of his contemporaries, including
Galileo and Johannes Kepler. His enduring contribution is as a political philosopher who justified
wide-ranging government powers on the basis of the self-interested consent of citizens.

Early life
Discover the life of Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, scientist, and historian Discover
the life of Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, scientist, and historian See all videos for this
article

Hobbes’s father was a quick-tempered vicar of a small Wiltshire parish church. Disgraced after
engaging in a brawl at his own church door, he disappeared and abandoned his three children to
the care of his brother, a well-to-do glover in Amesbury. When he was four years old, Hobbes
was sent to school at Westport, then to a private school, and finally, at 15, to Magdalen Hall in
the University of Oxford, where he took a traditional arts degree and in his spare time developed
an interest in maps.

For nearly the whole of his adult life, Hobbes worked for different branches of the wealthy and
aristocratic Cavendish family. Upon taking his degree at Oxford in 1608, he was employed as
page and tutor to the young William Cavendish, afterward the second earl of Devonshire. Over
the course of many decades Hobbes served the family and their associates as translator, traveling
companion, keeper of accounts, business representative, political adviser, and scientific
collaborator. Through his employment by William Cavendish, the first earl of Devonshire, and
his heirs, Hobbes became connected with the royalist side in disputes between the king and
Parliament that continued until the 1640s and that culminated in the English Civil Wars (1642–
51). Hobbes also worked for the marquess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a cousin of William
Cavendish, and Newcastle’s brother, Sir Charles Cavendish. The latter was the Centre of the
“Welbeck Academy,” an informal network of scientists named for one of the family houses at
Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire

Hobbes social contract theory.

1. Hypothesis: The State of Nature:

Thomas Hobbes begins by noting that all people are basically equal in strength and
intelligence. No single person is so smart or powerful that they cannot be defeated our
outwitted by someone else (or maybe a few others). That being so, everyone thinks to herself
that she is capable of getting whatever she wants. Furthermore, people only ever act out of
self-interest. He writes, “of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to
himself.” This leads to competition of every human against every other for the resources that
we want to acquire. Hobbes concludes that, in our natural state (pre-government), we humans
would be in a constant state of war and quarrel with one another—everyone competing and
fighting for the resources, which are not abundant enough for everyone to have everything
they desire. This natural state of man is one where people live in “continual fear and danger
of violent death” and life itself is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Basically, Hobbes
is saying that mankind is generally selfish, and so, without laws to restrain him, he will do
whatever he needs to in order to sustain his own life (even if it means stealing from or killing
others). The proof: Hobbes says, if you don’t believe that mankind is naturally selfish and
even dangerous, then examine your own habits. Do you lock your doors at night? Do you
lock your car? Do you carry a bottle of pepper spray when walking alone at night? These are
all indicators that Hobbes is right. Hobbes admits that the world was never in a TOTAL state
of war or “state of nature”, but he points out that even the modern world supports his point:
Nations are constantly at war with one another, or else have to constantly threaten each other
with bombs and send spies over each other’s borders to collect intel in order to maintain
peaces
Supporting Rationale

: The Prisoner’s Dilemma:

One explanation for why people are more likely to betray each rather than cooperate (i.e., as
Hobbes predicts that they would in the state of nature) comes from game theory. Given that
people are primarily motivated by self-interest. Consider this scenario: We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed. - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence
(1776) 2 x Two Prisoners: Two people are brought in for a crime, but there is not enough
evidence to convict either of them fully. Both detainees are offered the same deal: If they
testify against the OTHER prisoner (i.e., accuse the OTHER person of the crime), they will
go free, so long as the other person remains silent. A diagram of the four possible scenarios
would look as follows: Prisoner B remains silent Prisoner B betrays prisoner A Prisoner A
remains silent Prisoner A: 1 year Prisoner B: 1 year Prisoner A: 10 years Prisoner B: Goes
free Prisoner A betrays prisoner B Prisoner A: Goes free Prisoner B: 10 years Prisoner A: 5
years Prisoner B: 5 years Consider the scenario where prisoner A betrays the other prisoner
(B). If prisoner B remains silent, prisoner A will go free rather than getting 1 year (for
remaining silent). On the other hand, if prisoner B betrays prisoner A, prisoner A will only
get 5 years rather than 10 years if he remains silent. So, EITHER WAY, prisoner A is better
off betraying prisoner B. And the same goes for prisoner B. The lesson is that, if we are
PURELY looking out for our own self interest, it is often (always?) better to do something
which makes others worse off. BUT: Now add up the totals for each box. The total is 10
years for every box EXCEPT the one where both prisoners remain silent (the total is only 2
years in that box). So, the TOTAL harm is minimized if the two prisoners can make some
sort of contract with one another where both agree to remain silent. The trick is: How can
either prisoner be sure that the other will keep up his end of the bargain?

2. Solution: The Social Contract

3. Our natural inclination is to fall into a state of war. But, Hobbes points out that all of this
mistrust and deception and betrayal which would go on in our natural state
 woulddisappearif there were both (a) a social contract, and (b) some institution in place to
enforce the contract. While mankind is by nature generally selfish and would, if left to his
own devices, act as if he had a right to everything he wanted, the best scenario for
EVERYONE would be for everyone to cooperate with one another for the common good.
But, doing so would 3 require a contract, where each person forfeits some of their
liberties in exchange for something else. For example, I agree to not kill or steal from you
if you agree to do the same for me (the benefit that we receive in return is safety and
peace of mind). However, because everyone’s primary motive is selfishness (as Hobbes
thinks), such a contract will inevitably be broken unless it is somehow enforced.
(Contracts or agreements without any insurance against betrayal never go well. For
instance, in movies, people are always hesitant to hand over the money in a hostage
situation until they have received the hostage. They are always afraid of being betrayed
by the other party because there is no one to penalize betrayal.) So, to get out of the state
of nature, a contract is needed AND some *enforcement* of that contract is needed, or
else no one will keep it. So, we elect some third party person, or assembly of persons, to
rule over us to enforce the contract (i.e., collect our payment and arrange/distribute the
common goods). This is the beginning of government. For example, in our current
society, we give up tax money, and the freedom to steal from or murder others without
punishment, etc. in order to gain other common goods—e.g., protection from foreign
invasion, police, firefighters, free education, etc. Hobbes likens the government to a great
LEVIATHAN (a biblical monster that wields great power). So, what legitimizes the
government’s authority over the governed? Simple. Our CONSENT. Hobbes’ claim is
that we are obligated to obey the governing rulers because we have a CONTRACT with
them; we are obligated to hold up our end of that contract because we have
CONSENTED to do so—and this is the basis of the government’s authority. The duty of
allegiance to the government, then, is like the duty to keep a promise, or hold up your end
of the deal after signing a contract

John Locke.

1. Disagreement with Hobbes:

John Locke also proposes that the government obtains its authority via social contract.
The ideas expressed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence were very
heavily influenced by Locke, who was in turn influenced by Hobbes. However, Locke
disagrees with Hobbes on the following:
: Locke’s version of the state of nature is much less brutal. He says it is merely a state of
“men living according to reason” alone, rather than subject to some higher authority. It is
very different from the state of war (where every man constantly takes away from others
by force), which Hobbes seems to equate as the same thing as the state of nature. Though,
Locke does admit that the state of nature more easily lead to a state of war than a political
society does.
The law of nature
: Hobbes’ view is more cynical because he believes that in the state of nature there is
COMPLETE liberty. Hobbes believes that, in the state of nature, “every man has a right
to everything; even to one another’s body.” That is, there would be no morality or law of
any sort.
Locke disagrees,
saying we would still subject to a ‘law of nature’ which governs people’s actions: “The
state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone such that no one
tought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Scarcity: Another
reason that Hobbes believes that the state of nature would be more violent than Locke is
that he believes the resources of the world are SCARCE. Since there is not enough (land,
timber, fruits, vegetables, livestock, fuels, etc.) to go around for everyone, people will
constantly fight over them. Locke’s picture is very different. He likens the resources to an
abundant, flowing river. His conclusion that the state of nature would not lead to much
quarrel, then, seems to be a result of the fact that he believes there would be enough of
everything to go around for everyone. Is this view of nature, correct? Is selfishness bad?
Even Locke admits that “every man is toward himself”—that is, motivated by self-
interest. We tend to interpret this claim as the claim that “everyone is selfish”, and this a
bad thing. But is it? Is it possible to act always out of self-interest and be a good person
rather than a bad one? Perhaps the thing that makes Mother Teresa happiest is to help
 others. In that case, she helps others because she is motivated to make herself happy. But,
then, is she a BAD or SELFISH person?
2. Locke on the Social Contract:
Note that Locke does not think the state of nature would be TOTALLY peaceful. He
admits that it would be “full of fears and continual dangers”, “uncertain, and constantly
exposed to the invasion of others” because there are certain “degenerate men”. It is this
fact which would lead people to make political contracts. Because it is an “ill condition”
to remain in the state of nature, this drives people to want to give up certain freedoms in
order to better protect their own property (i.e., life, freedom, and possessions). The
freedoms they give up are the ability to take justice into their own hands and personally
punish others; also, in the state of nature, people have the ability to do WHATEVER they
want to preserve themselves (short of harming others, which is against the law of nature).
In society, they give up this freedom. Locke says that mankind can only give up their
liberties by CONSENT. What he recommends is a democracy (as opposed to Hobbes’
monarchy) where we, by consent, establish a government to rule, and we consent to its
laws and rulings by majority vote (either of the public, or of some publicly elected
officials)

Comparison between Hobbes and Machiavelli.

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli were both influential political philosophers who lived
in different time periods and had distinct ideas about politics, power, and human nature. While
there are some similarities in their thinking, there are also significant differences. Here is a
comparison of Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli:

Time Period:

Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes lived in the 17th century, during a time of political turmoil in England,
particularly the English Civil War.

Niccolò Machiavelli: Machiavelli lived in the 15th and 16th centuries in Italy, during the
Renaissance period.
Human Nature:

Hobbes: Hobbes had a pessimistic view of human nature. He believed that humans were
naturally driven by self-interest and prone to conflict and aggression, which he famously
described as the "war of all against all" in the state of nature.

Machiavelli: Machiavelli had a more pragmatic view of human nature. While he acknowledged
the potential for cruelty and deceit, he also believed that humans could be rational and capable of
reason

The Role of the State

Hobbes: Hobbes argued for a strong, centralized, and absolute government. He believed that a
powerful sovereign authority was necessary to maintain order and prevent the chaos of the state
of nature.

Machiavelli: Machiavelli was concerned with statecraft and the acquisition and maintenance of
political power. He did not prescribe a specific form of government but emphasized the
importance of effective governance and the ruler's ability to maintain stability and power.

Morality and Ethics

:Hobbes: Hobbes focused on the moral and ethical obligations of individuals to obey the
sovereign authority, which were rooted in the social contract. He believed that moral values
could be derived from self-interest and the desire for peace.

Machiavelli: Machiavelli is often associated with the idea that "the ends justify the means." He
emphasized political pragmatism over strict moral codes, suggesting that rulers should do what is
necessary to maintain their power and protect the state. Influence on Political Thought:

Hobbes: Hobbes is considered one of the founders of modern political philosophy and his ideas
on the social contract and political obligation have had a significant impact on political thought.

Machiavelli: Machiavelli's work, particularly "The Prince," is often seen as a key text in the
field of political realism and has influenced discussions on statecraft, power politics, and
leadership.
References.

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/contract.pdf

https://www.e-ir.info/2010/09/01/thomas-hobbes-and-niccolo-machiavelli-a-
comparison/#:~:text=Firstly%2C%20Hobbes%20was%20a
%20scholar,servant%20of%20the%20Florentine%20Republic.

Htpp://chatgpt//.edu.//